Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Frankdatank1218

why no tow/atgm mraps?

Recommended Posts

What you mean?.

He means that adding MRAP cars (Hunter, Ifrit, Strider) with TOW/ATGM/LAA variants would be great to have in-game, and I agree with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I agree, could be very usefull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes then one hunter can take two mbt's in seconds, sure. Titan AT already disables (sometimes blow) a tank when hit directly and this happens alot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah yes then one hunter can take two mbt's in seconds, sure. Titan AT already disables (sometimes blow) a tank when hit directly and this happens alot.

And? Even a RPG 32 Or a nlaw can 1shot a slammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The power of the ATGM's are realistic. This is why further development of the MBT concept is dying off in real life. Anti-Tank weaponry has evolved farther than brute strength armor. Mobile IFV's and "Smart" defense systems and IR smoke are more realistic solutions then "make tougher armor". The MBT is going the way of the batleship, a big, brute force unit becoming out of place in a smart weapon's world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some APC variants would be great too, just like the Striker-Series in Arma 2

So, what about a Marshal with a 0.50 cal, a GMG, a TOW, a Mortar or even a 120mm canon like in Arma 2?

But wait - Bohemia does much more important things, like adding the possibility of placing map markers in the UAV computer INSTEAD of f****** fixing the useless Greyhawks so that the gunner can controll the missiles on its own with a laser like in real life...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The power of the ATGM's are realistic. This is why further development of the MBT concept is dying off in real life. Anti-Tank weaponry has evolved farther than brute strength armor. Mobile IFV's and "Smart" defense systems and IR smoke are more realistic solutions then "make tougher armor". The MBT is going the way of the batleship, a big, brute force unit becoming out of place in a smart weapon's world.

The MBT concept isn´t dying off because of ATGMs but because of the nature of current conflicts. You don´t need MBTs to fight a few rag tag Taliban. As soon as ther are two states going up against each other you start to see that MBTs still have a very important role on the Battlefield. The power of ATGMs is countered by the introduction of defense systems like Arena and Shtora.

The same is true with Battleships. They aren´t that important anymore because there simply is no enemy who would justify such a huge ammount of force (and the cost that comes with it). But go and take a look at a modernised Iowa class Battleship. It is extremely powerfull and resistant but also extremely expensive to maintain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The power of the ATGM's are realistic. This is why further development of the MBT concept is dying off in real life. Anti-Tank weaponry has evolved farther than brute strength armor. Mobile IFV's and "Smart" defense systems and IR smoke are more realistic solutions then "make tougher armor". The MBT is going the way of the batleship, a big, brute force unit becoming out of place in a smart weapon's world.

but the Merkava can take several RPG and ATGM hits to the front and side (dont know about the back ) and the developement of ERA and some other nice features still makes em a nice and battle changing box of steel/ceramic and some other stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7rxBifd0cY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The MBT concept isn´t dying off because of ATGMs but because of the nature of current conflicts. You don´t need MBTs to fight a few rag tag Taliban. As soon as ther are two states going up against each other you start to see that MBTs still have a very important role on the Battlefield. The power of ATGMs is countered by the introduction of defense systems like Arena and Shtora.

The same is true with Battleships. They aren´t that important anymore because there simply is no enemy who would justify such a huge ammount of force (and the cost that comes with it). But go and take a look at a modernised Iowa class Battleship. It is extremely powerfull and resistant but also extremely expensive to maintain.

But the thing is, today in order to beat battleships or MBTs you don't need vehicles of equivalent sizes. An MBT can be easily destroyed by an ATGM humvee/soldier, a battleship can be destroyed by a truck carrying a cruise/ballistic missile.

Then there's the countermeasure race, IR smoke vs missiles, then APS vs missiles/rockets, or CIWS vs anti ship/cruise missiles. But what this means is that heavy armor(MBTs, battleships) aren't needed since there are small countermeasure systems which can replace thick armoring.

Theoretically in 2035 in the Armaverse, APS and missile jamming systems should have been advanced enough to replace most of the armor, instead of having slammers we should have APCs or even armored cars fitted with missile launchers and HMGs/GMGs,

which is also why more MRAP and APC variants would make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forget that armor still plays a role. I´ll explain why. On one side you have ATGMs and on the other a few modern/slightly futuristic MBTs with passive and active protection systems. Chances are that your ATGMs won´t harm then. So how can you defeat them? By bringing in some MBTs! Now you have MBTs vs. MBTs again and armor becomes very important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You forget that armor still plays a role. I´ll explain why. On one side you have ATGMs and on the other a few modern/slightly futuristic MBTs with passive and active protection systems. Chances are that your ATGMs won´t harm then. So how can you defeat them? By bringing in some MBTs! Now you have MBTs vs. MBTs again and armor becomes very important.

The problem of the MBTs is that are really expensive, and it has been proved in Afghanistan, that millions of dollars can't do anything against a few kg of explosive buried that are activated with a wooden planck.

Same in WW2, when the expensive nazi super-tanks were defeated with molotov cocktails and little explosive charges. While the allies used hundreds of mid/light tanks.

It was funny because the whole german Blitzkrieg strategy was though for light tanks like the PzI and PzII, max a mid one like the Pz. III ( look 39-42 campaigns ).

Ergo nowadays war is more directed to cheap less heavy vehicles with more mobility.

Edited by MistyRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely correct. That is why I say that MBTs go extinct because of the nature of the conflicts the world faces today. However they will come back into fashion very fast if there is a war between two large industrialised countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely correct. That is why I say that MBTs go extinct because of the nature of the conflicts the world faces today. However they will come back into fashion very fast if there is a war between two large industrialised countries.

Either that or the gulf between the effectiveness of tanks versus anti-tank weaponry leads to another WWI-type deadlock. Assuming it's a conventional war at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why no mine resistant ambush protected vehicles... with ATGMs? You're asking why there are no vehicles designed for COIN (this follows from the nature of the engagements specified in their name) that are designed against tanks (the purpose of ATGMs). It's not often it gets to be said, but I think you've just answered your own question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That argument only works when you have alternative vehicles. In arma, if we want a light vehicle, we only have the MRAP to choose. Light vehicles with ATGM launchers exist, so I don't know why it's even an issue. Having an ATGM variant hunter wouldn't be too overpowered since it would be giving up the HMG or GMG to mount it, and would be vulnerable to infantry small arms / shoulder fired rockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are probably RPG7's, I'm talking about the more advanced ATGM's of first world armies. Stuff like Javelins, Metis, things like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are probably RPG7's, I'm talking about the more advanced ATGM's of first world armies. Stuff like Javelins, Metis, things like that.

China has also good stuff ,turkey Fußes their New aa system not Form germany Or america so not all nice is from the first world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are probably RPG7's, I'm talking about the more advanced ATGM's of first world armies. Stuff like Javelins, Metis, things like that.

I'm confused... an RPG-7 isn't even an ATGM. It's a dumbfire rocket, which would make no sense to mount to a vehicle.

I agree that there are good ATGM platforms out there today that aren't US made. Unfortunately, I think all we'll see in arma is a variant of each MRAP with a titan launcher mounted to the roof. If we even get that. Since apparently all armies use the same few weapons in the future.

I'd much prefer to see light vehicles with wire guided ATGM's like the TOW. Not fire and forget type rockets, but something you have to guide into the target. That would at least leave the vehicle somewhat exposed while engaging targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×